To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

The Papers of William A. Graham 569
it for granted that that did not exclude the power to resort to
Conventions as another means of amending, Mr. Meares, of Samp-son,
proposed an article "so that no Convention of the people
should hereafter be called, except by the concurrent vote of two-thirds
of each House of the General Assembly." Deb. Con. 369.
Did this pass? If it had, I should have surrendered the question.
But Mr. Giles, of Rowan, and others remonstrated; and after
debate, Mr. Meares modified "his amendment so as [to] provide
that no Convention shall hereafter be called by the General As-sembly,
except by the concurrent vote of two-thirds of each House.
Mr. Giles said he was perfectly satisfied, and the amendment in
that shape was adopted. Deb. Con. 372,3. Now, what was the dif-ference?
The first proposition was general, and prevented the call
of a Convention in any way, except by the concurrence of two-thirds
of each House, and was tantamount to saying no Conven-tion
shall be called, either by the people or by the General As-sembly,
except with the previous concurrence of two-thirds of each
House of the General Assembly. Upon remonstrance being made,
Mr. Meares modifies, so as to leave out the restraint on the people,
and confine the power to call in the General Assembly to a two-thirds
vote, leaving to the people the right which they had had,
and under which that convention was then sitting. And if the
right remained to them, the power and duty of the General As-sembly,
in a proper case, to provide a remedy, is not taken away,
by forbidding it to call a convention, except by two-thirds. For,
according to the opposite construction, even two-thirds could not
submit the question to the people, of whether they will have a
convention, but must themselves call it, or there can be none at
all.
Again, we have had three conventions in North Carolina to
change the constitution since its original adoption in 1776—one
which met at Hillsboro' in July 1788, with power to deliberate on
the Federal Constitution, and to establish a permanent seat of
Government. It rejected the Federal Constitution, and fixed the
seat of Government near Isaac Hunter's plantation, in Wake
county. Another, which met at Fayetteville, in November, 1789,
again to consider the Federal Constitution and the expediency of
allowing the town of Fayetteville a member of the General As-sembly.
It adopted the constitution of the United States, and al-lowed
a member to the town of Fayetteville. Both of these conven-tions
were called by the General Assembly, both made changes
in the constitution; the last a most important change, by adding

The Papers of William A. Graham 569
it for granted that that did not exclude the power to resort to
Conventions as another means of amending, Mr. Meares, of Samp-son,
proposed an article "so that no Convention of the people
should hereafter be called, except by the concurrent vote of two-thirds
of each House of the General Assembly." Deb. Con. 369.
Did this pass? If it had, I should have surrendered the question.
But Mr. Giles, of Rowan, and others remonstrated; and after
debate, Mr. Meares modified "his amendment so as [to] provide
that no Convention shall hereafter be called by the General As-sembly,
except by the concurrent vote of two-thirds of each House.
Mr. Giles said he was perfectly satisfied, and the amendment in
that shape was adopted. Deb. Con. 372,3. Now, what was the dif-ference?
The first proposition was general, and prevented the call
of a Convention in any way, except by the concurrence of two-thirds
of each House, and was tantamount to saying no Conven-tion
shall be called, either by the people or by the General As-sembly,
except with the previous concurrence of two-thirds of each
House of the General Assembly. Upon remonstrance being made,
Mr. Meares modifies, so as to leave out the restraint on the people,
and confine the power to call in the General Assembly to a two-thirds
vote, leaving to the people the right which they had had,
and under which that convention was then sitting. And if the
right remained to them, the power and duty of the General As-sembly,
in a proper case, to provide a remedy, is not taken away,
by forbidding it to call a convention, except by two-thirds. For,
according to the opposite construction, even two-thirds could not
submit the question to the people, of whether they will have a
convention, but must themselves call it, or there can be none at
all.
Again, we have had three conventions in North Carolina to
change the constitution since its original adoption in 1776—one
which met at Hillsboro' in July 1788, with power to deliberate on
the Federal Constitution, and to establish a permanent seat of
Government. It rejected the Federal Constitution, and fixed the
seat of Government near Isaac Hunter's plantation, in Wake
county. Another, which met at Fayetteville, in November, 1789,
again to consider the Federal Constitution and the expediency of
allowing the town of Fayetteville a member of the General As-sembly.
It adopted the constitution of the United States, and al-lowed
a member to the town of Fayetteville. Both of these conven-tions
were called by the General Assembly, both made changes
in the constitution; the last a most important change, by adding